Abortion

[Music Dragon]

With the way you're wording this, it sounds like you're blaming the child for everything. The evolutionary purpose for sex is to reproduce (please note that I said evolutionary) and that if one get's pregnant on accident, it is their fault, and is no way the unborn child's fault. I'm pro-choice by the way.

I'm not saying it's the child's fault. That has nothing to do with it. I'm just saying it has no right to reside in the mother's body.

 

[Renegade]

i find it tedious to try and join a debate whenever shits already going down so i wrote myself a post three years ago that i copypaste whenever i find an abortion debate, my hand analogy:

Now, my hand has 23 pairs of chromosomes. Therefore it is 'human', and keep in mind that I'm using the term as most pro-lifers do: very loosely. My hand is also 'alive'. To illustrate this, let me take you back to the seven signs of life:

1. Growth
2. Stimulus Response
3. Metabolism
4. Homeostasis
5. Reproduction
6. Mutation
7. Autonomous Motion

I'm not going to go on a tangent to try and prove my hand fits into every single criteria on that list. Many of them are debatable; the list itself is a horrible indicator of life. But contrast my hand's results with this test to the foetus' during the first and second trimesters. You'll find that the results of the latter and former are easily interchangable. I could go on a further dissection of this point if you'd like.

Now I'm sure you're wondering: if they are so inexplicably similar then where exactly do my hand and the foetus differ? In truth, they don't. My hand is to my body as the foetus is to the mother. The former cannot survive when separated from the latter. It is a state of total dependence. I could cut off my hand right now, and no one would be able to stop me on legal or moral grounds.

Now this begs the question: if the foetus and my hand are so strikingly similar then why is there so much of a fuss about abortion; why does no-one protest against self-mutilation instead? For the answer I'm going to have to go to the root of all your arguments: you're giving the foetus personhood, sentience, humanity, a 'soul', whatever you want to call it. Why? Your misguided sentimentality over the clump of cells.

The fact of the matter is the foetus does not have any sense of individuality at its early stages of development simply because it does not have any organ to process its sentience. When pro-choicers revoke the foetus of any rights and call it 'not human' what they mean is that the foetus cannot do the very basics of what is expected from a human being, even an infant. It is not aware of its surroundings. It does not react to stimuli until the later stages of pregnancy. It has no emotion, no thought; not even instinct. It's a vegetable. It's in the third trimester that the foetus develops brain cells and starts processing its sentience, and the third trimester is the period where even the most dedicated pro-choices stop condoning abortion.

Of course you could always bring up the 'potential human' argument as nearly everyone does when I present them with the hand analogy, but I expect you, as I do, to subscribe this ideal: 'we are not looking at what could be; we are looking at what is'. If you do not then I'm afraid no amount of sense will budge you from your stance.

 

[Saith]

So I have a question.

Where does the father come into abortion? As in, to what extend should the father of the foetus have input into whether or not an abortion can take place?

Because I have no answer to this. At all. I have tons of arguments, but no conclusions.

I mean, on the one hand, a woman should have control because, in the end, it's her body that's going through it. On the other, though, any choice made is effecting the father's child. Having an abortion against the father's will is killing his child.

So yeah, I don't know.

 

[Eloi]

So I have a question.

Where does the father come into abortion? As in, to what extend should the father of the foetus have input into whether or not an abortion can take place?

Because I have no answer to this. At all. I have tons of arguments, but no conclusions.

I mean, on the one hand, a woman should have control because, in the end, it's her body that's going through it. On the other, though, any choice made is effecting the father's child. Having an abortion against the father's will is killing his child.

So yeah, I don't know.

If you consider a foetus a child before it becomes one, than yes, the sperm-donner person should have input to the potential-foetus-baring person's decision, but if you consider a foetus a parasite inside the potential-foetus-baring person, than the sperm-donner-person has as much say about as someone who gives someone else an infection about if the infection should be treated.

So, really, it loops back to whether you consider a foetus a parasite or person.

 

[Saith]

If you consider a foetus a child before it becomes one, than yes, the sperm-donner person should have input to the potential-foetus-baring person's decision, but if you consider a foetus a parasite inside the potential-foetus-baring person, than the sperm-donner-person has as much say about as someone who gives someone else an infection about if the infection should be treated.

So, really, it loops back to whether you consider a foetus a parasite or person.

Well, no, I mean the only reason abortion can be moral is if no one wants the child. I'm pro-choice, and I don't think the foetus is a child, however that doesn't matter. See, if the parents want to have it, it's their child. It may not be human, yet. It may not be a thinking entity, but it's still their child.
A mother-to-be might tell her family that she's 'having a baby'. What she won't say is that she's gestating a foetus that one day may be squeezed out of her vag and therefore be considered alive. My point is that the parents don't care if it's born or not yet; It's still their child. It's not a foetus, it's their child. Killing said child, inside or outside of the womb, will have the same effect on them emotionally. That's kind of why miscarriages are a big deal. If a baby's stillborn, the parents don't just say 'eh, fuck it. let's make a new one'.

And so, if the dad really thinks of the foetus as his child, as his bouncing baby boy perhaps, then wouldn't it be immoral to kill it? What's difference does it make (to the father) if it's killed inside of or outside of the womb? He'd still have lost his kid, he'd still have lost all his hopes and dreams about how this child would turn out.

The reason I ask this is because my girlfriend told me she's pregnant last night, and she's considering an abortion. I have no idea how much I should be able to persuade her, and I've already gotten attached to the idea of having a kid.

 

[Les Review]

What's difference does it make (to the father) if it's killed inside of or outside of the womb?

Sorry but this statement should never have been made. I think anyone would be much more upset if a mother killed their born baby than they would if she just got an abortion.

Back to the point if the father should have a say, it's really hard to justify either side.
If the father is willing to care for and raise the child, then what right does the mother have to never give him that chance?
But if the mother doesn't want to go through morning sickness, weight gain, regular doctor appointments, labor, and all those other fun things that come with pregnancy, for a child she doesn't even want, why should she?
In the end, I think both sides have to be willing. You just can't stop someone from getting an abortion if it's what she really wants to do.

Sorry for the run on sentences. I'm pretty bad with that.

 

[Zero Moment]

*Raises hand*
Question!
Is foetus like the technical spelling, or is it just a spelling I haven't heard of before?

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

'Fetus' is (apparently) the North American and scientifically-correct spelling.

 

[Eloi]

ell, no, I mean the only reason abortion can be moral is if no one wants the child. I'm pro-choice, and I don't think the foetus is a child, however that doesn't matter. See, if the parents want to have it, it's their child. It may not be human, yet. It may not be a thinking entity, but it's still their child.
A mother-to-be might tell her family that she's 'having a baby'. What she won't say is that she's gestating a foetus that one day may be squeezed out of her vag and therefore be considered alive. My point is that the parents don't care if it's born or not yet; It's still their child. It's not a foetus, it's their child. Killing said child, inside or outside of the womb, will have the same effect on them emotionally. That's kind of why miscarriages are a big deal. If a baby's stillborn, the parents don't just say 'eh, fuck it. let's make a new one'.

And so, if the dad really thinks of the foetus as his child, as his bouncing baby boy perhaps, then wouldn't it be immoral to kill it? What's difference does it make (to the father) if it's killed inside of or outside of the womb? He'd still have lost his kid, he'd still have lost all his hopes and dreams about how this child would turn out.

Well, I suppose this needs philosophy.

For my epistemology, I will suppose there is two different levels of truth (truth is defined as a piece of information that is applicable in predicting behavior or people or objects and is thus valued over false information which has no such qualities.)

Subjective truth: Information about objects or people (or even hypothetical objects or people) that may or may not be true that affect people regardless. The amount of value in the truth depends on how many people believe the information to be true. For example, knowledge of the theology of the Abrahamic God is useful information because many people believe it to be true and make decisions based on Him even if it isn't true. The tricky thing is that the value fluctuates and can plummet to nothing unlike Objective truth.

Objective truth: Basically, information about objects or people observed to be or deducted to be true. Again, the amount of value in the truth depends on how many people know if it. For example, raising funds for an expedition across the Atlantic before the times of Hellenistic Greece's advances in geography will be tricky because of no one believing of anything of worth beyond the Atlantic, or even that there is anything there. Thus, your knowledge of a semi-spherical Earth would be useless. The nice things is though, is that generally, once an objective truth is discovered and becomes wide-spread, it will almost never lose value.


For my ethics, I will assume the categorical imperative of mutual continued existence, that is, an overriding principle is the continued existence of a person (and all people equally), and this includes both direct factors (direct threats to life) or indirect factors (threats to shelter, food, drink, happiness, etc.) that can affect continued existence.

Thus, in a classical ethics model, the action that puts the most amount of people's existence in jeopardy is unethical, and the action that puts the least amount of people's existence in jeopardy is ethical.

However, in applied ethics, one does not usually have indifferent care for the mutual existence of everyone, but has relative values based on emotional investment. Therefore, in applied ethics, the action that puts the person with the most amount of love invested's existence in jeopardy is unethical, and the reverse is ethical.

There is also anthropic principle ethics, that is, one must preserve one's existence or existence-lengthening factors so that one can make moral choices on the above, as absence of one's self, you can't make ethical choices.

Which to apply in what context if they come in conflict is an interesting moral question, and can be shown in many works of fiction, like in the 2001 Spider-Man film, where Spider-Man was (supposed to be) forced to chose between Mary Jane Watson, his love interest, and a bus full of innocent people by the Green Goblin [Classical vs Applied]. Or deciding whether to come out to one's parents. [Anthropic Principle and/or Classical vs Applied and/or Classical]

Connecting this back to the issue at hand, an abortion concerns a parasite (Objective/possible Subjective) or a child (possible Subjective) and the concerns of the foetus-barer (Anthropic/Applied) and the semen-doner (Applied/Anthropic). [Note: I use these over other terms because a foetus-barer and the semen-doner could be any combination of genders.

However, I say that one should go with the foetus-barer's concerns as they will be more impacted by the event because they live with their own body all the time, wherein the semen-doner is not impacted as much as they don't occupy the body at all or see it as much. Thus, Anthropic in favor of the foetus-barer. As well, the foetus not being a child is a Subjective Truth that the would-be aborter puts value in, and because the choice ultimately belongs to them, any other Subjective or even Objective Truth matters not. It would be wise for the semen-doner not to pressure or guilt the foetus-barer whatsoever as this will negatively impact both and have no affect.

Therefore, in response to this:

The reason I ask this is because my girlfriend told me she's pregnant last night, and she's considering an abortion. I have no idea how much I should be able to persuade her, and I've already gotten attached to the idea of having a kid.

I say: Have one at a different time after she aborts it. Its not that hard to be inseminated again. I guess I just don't understand what the difference is between a foetus and a lot of stomach fat (or a tumor or parasite to be more symmetrical in properties), emotionally, and I don't see why others see different, however, I've attempted to logically defend (abit sloppily) my position to be subject to further debate.

*Raises hand*
Question!
Is foetus like the technical spelling, or is it just a spelling I haven't heard of before?

Its the Commonwealth Spelling, derived from fœtus, and like most American spellings, they favor changing 'œ' into 'e' while like most Commonwealth spellings, they favor changing 'œ' into 'oe'. I prefer Commonwealth spelling because I am a rabid Anglophile.

 

[Renegade]

someone should respond to this

Now, my hand has 23 pairs of chromosomes. Therefore it is 'human', and keep in mind that I'm using the term as most pro-lifers do: very loosely. My hand is also 'alive'. To illustrate this, let me take you back to the seven signs of life:

1. Growth
2. Stimulus Response
3. Metabolism
4. Homeostasis
5. Reproduction
6. Mutation
7. Autonomous Motion

I'm not going to go on a tangent to try and prove my hand fits into every single criteria on that list. Many of them are debatable; the list itself is a horrible indicator of life. But contrast my hand's results with this test to the foetus' during the first and second trimesters. You'll find that the results of the latter and former are easily interchangable. I could go on a further dissection of this point if you'd like.

Now I'm sure you're wondering: if they are so inexplicably similar then where exactly do my hand and the foetus differ? In truth, they don't. My hand is to my body as the foetus is to the mother. The former cannot survive when separated from the latter. It is a state of total dependence. I could cut off my hand right now, and no one would be able to stop me on legal or moral grounds.

Now this begs the question: if the foetus and my hand are so strikingly similar then why is there so much of a fuss about abortion; why does no-one protest against self-mutilation instead? For the answer I'm going to have to go to the root of all your arguments: you're giving the foetus personhood, sentience, humanity, a 'soul', whatever you want to call it. Why? Your misguided sentimentality over the clump of cells.

The fact of the matter is the foetus does not have any sense of individuality at its early stages of development simply because it does not have any organ to process its sentience. When pro-choicers revoke the foetus of any rights and call it 'not human' what they mean is that the foetus cannot do the very basics of what is expected from a human being, even an infant. It is not aware of its surroundings. It does not react to stimuli until the later stages of pregnancy. It has no emotion, no thought; not even instinct. It's a vegetable. It's in the third trimester that the foetus develops brain cells and starts processing its sentience, and the third trimester is the period where even the most dedicated pro-choices stop condoning abortion.

Of course you could always bring up the 'potential human' argument as nearly everyone does when I present them with the hand analogy, but I expect you, as I do, to subscribe this ideal: 'we are not looking at what could be; we are looking at what is'. If you do not then I'm afraid no amount of sense will budge you from your stance.

 

[Eloi]

someone should respond to this

Well, someone probably would have if you would haven't said:

Of course you could always bring up the 'potential human' argument as nearly everyone does when I present them with the hand analogy, but I expect you, as I do, to subscribe this ideal: 'we are not looking at what could be; we are looking at what is'. If you do not then I'm afraid no amount of sense will budge you from your stance.

Which asserts that:

a)Any objections to your premises are irrational because they are objections to your premises.
b)Any debate involving the objection of your premises are not worth debating because they come from irrationality.

Which are both pretty much debate non-starters. However, I will try to use your "we are not looking at what could be; we are looking at what is" principle into other areas of life and see what happens.

At the grocery store!
"Hm...should I buy this loaf of bread? Well, I'll have to wait to eat it, and thus its only potentially food to consume, and not actually food to consume, therefore I will not buy this loaf of bread. In fact! I will not buy any food, as I will have to wait to consume it and it will have no value as it is only potential-food, nor will I grow any food, as it will have no value as potential-food. I will just live off the land! But wait. I can't do that. Because everything is potential-food. And in the moment, there is only potential-food. Therefore, I will not eat." *starves*

At the playground!
"Hm...all of these children are dependent on external benefactors and do not have higher levels of cognition that I deem to be criteria for human sentience. They only have value as potential-humans, but right now, they are just parasites of the economy. Therefore, I must kill all children." *pulls out machine gun*

At a nursing home!
"They are like children...only not cute and less likely to be independent. Therefore, I must kill all old people." *pulls out machine gun again*

At home!
"Hm, I am not currently engaging in any interpersonal relationships, thus I am only a potential-friend and lover. Therefore, I only have potential-value to other people. I am also not currently doing work, therefore, I am only a potential-worker, and thus, I have no current value to society or myself as I am not currently producing my own means to live, and only parasitically living on my previous self. Therefore, I must kill myself." *yet again pulls out machine gun*

...that is, your arguments have severe ethical implications, and my theory of ethics that puts human value in emotional attachment has much better explanatory power than yours, which puts human value in current independence and sentience.

 

[Music Dragon]

I don't think the father should have any say in whether or not the mother should have an abortion, because, you know, it's in her body. You can't just impregnate someone and then go "you've got my child in there, now give birth to it!"

 

[Saith]

I say: Have one at a different time after she aborts it.

Can I just say that I'm not looking for advice on what to do? I've made up my mind in regards to the fact that I don't want her to have an abortion. What I'm trying to figure out is to how much of an extent I should express my opinion. And let me just say this, to: She's considering an abortion. She has no idea what the fuck to do - she has not made up her mind.

Its not that hard to be inseminated again. I guess I just don't understand what the difference is between a foetus and a lot of stomach fat (or a tumor or parasite to be more symmetrical in properties), emotionally, and I don't see why others see different, however, I've attempted to logically defend (abit sloppily) my position to be subject to further debate.

Because it isn't just 'misguided sentimentality over a clump of cells', okay? This is, quite literally, my baby. The love of my life is pregnant with my child. You can try demonise the process of birth, belittle it all you like, but when it comes down to it, she is not a foetus-bearer carrying a parasite in her vag. She is the mother of my baby. Baby.
I mean, okay, put it this way. Say you're pregnant optionally infected with baby-cancer. Now say someone kicked you in the stomach when you'd been pregnant ill for two months. They don't kick you hard enough to hurt you, but they do it hard enough to kill the baby cure you. Are you, what? Are you gonna be all '*shrug* don't matter, I can get infected again if I try hard enough~'. Or are you going to grieve and lament over your dead baby?
Because to me, the very thought that she's considering abortion feels like a kick in the balls. It quite literally winds me and makes me shake, because she is quite literally considering murdering my child. Let me clarify this: Not all foetuses are children. If the parents don't want the foetuses then they are parasites. But if even one of them wants it, it's that parent's child. Not the other parent's child, but it's very definitely a child.

And I realise I probably sound like a dick, but I'm just really tired and really scared.

 

[Shinji lover]

a fetus is not a human, and what it could be does not exist and never did if you abort. nothing of value was lost and any emotional value you place on this clump of cells has no place in an actual debate.. thats why abortion is an option.

 

[Queen Shiva]

Last year I was pregnant with a girl. My fiancé and I were ecstatic. However at about the 3 month mark the Doctor noticed that the fetus was being strangled by my cord. However, I didn't take heed to the Doc's words. Here in my part of Michigan it's ridiculously theocratic. So I went through with the pregnancy and gave birth to a dead baby. God, I wish I had an abortion.

Anyways, sorry if I went off topic.

 

[Saith]

a fetus is not a human, and what it could be does not exist and never did if you abort. nothing of value was lost and any emotional value you place on this clump of cells has no place in an actual debate.. thats why abortion is an option.

Using that logic, everybody everywhere should always have an abortion. Hell, it should be mandatory. If you don't look at what it becomes, and if you don't look at the emotions, then all pregnancy is is an unnecessary risk that should be banned. I mean, if our government's allowed to protect us from ourselves in other areas (drugs, etc) then surely it's allowed to prevent us from almost killing ourselves/each other through baby-cancer.

Fuck it, forced sterilisation all the way.

Now really, read what I'm saying. Read slowly, too. Don't skip words. That's bad. That's very very bad.


A foetus is not human. Abortion can only be moral if neither parent has become emotionally invested with it. The foetus can't feel pain, think, remember, experience or react, and so what it wants does not matter. However, if someone has become attached to it, that doesn't matter. It's their baby. It's literally their child. Put it this way: Sedating a child painlessly and causing them to suffocate in their sleep effects the parent just as much as if it had died in the womb. Why is this? It's because of the loss that the parent feels, not the pain that the child feels. Sure, if you killed that child painfully, the grief would be worse, but that doesn't matter.

 

[Shinji lover]

you didnt dispute anything i said.

i never suggested everybody in the world should have an abortion. thats stupid and i can only give the credit for that idea to you. what i said was a fetus doesnt think, it isnt the human that could be, which is basically the only argument the anti abortion stance has to offer. nothing about emotion is a viable argument, because we're not arguing for forced abortions. we're arguing for it to be an option like birth control, or a condom.

there's literally no argument bar 'what about the father' that holds any weight. and in that case it's only unfortunate, because its not his body and choice to make. he can't force her to have his kid.

 

[Eloi]

Can I just say that I'm not looking for advice on what to do?

Sorry, I thought you were. =(

I've made up my mind in regards to the fact that I don't want her to have an abortion. What I'm trying to figure out is to how much of an extent I should express my opinion. And let me just say this, to: She's considering an abortion. She has no idea what the fuck to do - she has not made up her mind.

You probably shouldn't make her feel bad, because it is not likely you will get a good result from pressuring someone into doing something they may not want to do, as you are not the one who makes the final choice on the matter. =/

Because it isn't just 'misguided sentimentality over a clump of cells', okay?

I didn't say that, as I have suggested foetuses could have emotional value.

This is, quite literally, my baby. The love of my life is pregnant with my child. You can try demonise the process of birth, belittle it all you like, but when it comes down to it, she is not a foetus-bearer carrying a parasite in her vag. She is the mother of my baby. Baby.

If you say so, I can't really dispute your emotional investments, though it makes your situation harder if you remain steadfast in them if/when circumstances change.

I mean, okay, put it this way. Say you're pregnant optionally infected with baby-cancer. Now say someone kicked you in the stomach when you'd been pregnant ill for two months. They don't kick you hard enough to hurt you, but they do it hard enough to kill the baby cure you. Are you, what? Are you gonna be all '*shrug* don't matter, I can get infected again if I try hard enough~'. Or are you going to grieve and lament over your dead baby?

I can't get pregnant. However, if I could pregnant, and I did have a miscarriage, I think I would try to emotionally distance myself from the lost foetus to ease the pain, which would be hard to do if my partner was insisting that it was their kid, and such.

Because to me, the very thought that she's considering abortion feels like a kick in the balls. It quite literally winds me and makes me shake, because she is quite literally considering murdering my child. Let me clarify this: Not all foetuses are children. If the parents don't want the foetuses then they are parasites. But if even one of them wants it, it's that parent's child. Not the other parent's child, but it's very definitely a child.

I suppose if you are treating it like such. But it might be better coping skills if you try to abandon those feelings...

And I realise I probably sound like a dick, but I'm just really tired and really scared.

Yeah, if I were to inseminate someone, I don't care if I could be the mother of a possible baby, it would not be my choice ultimately, thus I probably would try to never get attached to the baby in the first place in case of that...

you didnt dispute anything i said.

i never suggested everybody in the world should have an abortion. thats stupid and i can only give the credit for that idea to you. what i said was a fetus doesnt think, it isnt the human that could be, which is basically the only argument the anti abortion stance has to offer.

That's not true, because that would justify the murder of the comatose and mentally disabled.

The only difference is that it is possible they have emotional investments into them, which is probably the only worth one can ascribe to a human without excluding the abovesaid groups of people.

 

[leo33wii]

is this thread so serious?
i would like to say, i'm against abortion, i would rather have a child be born which includes the victims of rape.
however, the developmental stages when a fetus is aborted it isn't even a full human. most of the time the fetus is terminated before the nervous system has a chance to develop. so there isn't any pain at that stage.
ok, how about those after advance stages of development? well, those fetus' have the a nervous system similar to a tadpole. they may feel pain, they may not.
but never compare something that has never experienced life to someone who has, a fully mature adult who knows the different types of pain.

another thing, please do not use the "you just aborted beethoven" argument or any argument that claims that a child a potential to become a genius or someone who makes the world a better place, because i can use that and say this:
you're allowing a new Hitler to exist or another Ted Bundy.
both are fallacies

 

[Queen Shiva]

As a mother I'd hate to say it Leo, but who cares. You don't baby screeching in pain inside the womb. There's no real empathy. You can't dictate a Mother's life for a developing fetus that's arguably human.